Auroop Ganguly  an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering who heads Northeasterns Sustainability and Data Sciences Lab  explains how global climate change and extreme weather, such as hurricanes and heat waves, could affect water sustainability, critical infrastructures and human health.

What is the difference between global "weirding" and global warming?

Global weirding, a term coined by Rocky Mountain Institute co-founder Hunter Lovins and popularized by New York Times op-ed columnist Tom Friedman, primarily concerns climate extremes. In certain situations, these need to be defined in terms of their impact on natural, engineered and human ecosystems.

Global warming, which addresses changes in average global temperature, does not begin to convey the range of severe weather-related events and changes in weather patterns that can occur as a consequence of climate change.

Depending on the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, average global temperatures could rise between 2°F and 11°F by the end of the century. But in Boston, for example, temperatures can fluctuate more than that in a single day. So why should that much global warming matter?

Global weirding is a concise way to express why. When we talk about average temperatures rising at the scale of the entire globe and over long time periods, the consequences on heat waves, heavy rainfall, or water stresses, for example, can be severe across different regions of the world.

In terms of climate change, is it surprising that this winter has been so warm?

This winters weather may not necessarily relate to climate change. First of all, science cannot conclusively link climate change to any single severe weather event, or even one unusually warm or cold season. Second, just as one single cold winter does not dispute climate change, similarly one single warm winter does nothing to reinforce our degree of belief in climate change.

While seasonal fluctuations over specific regions of the earth may occur for a variety of naturally occuring reasons, climate change refers to a longer-term trend in the average global temperature. This does not imply that climate change may not cause a seasonal warming over a specific region, just that current science does not afford that level of precision when delineating between the consequences of natural variability versus long-term change.

The culprit of the recent warm U.S. winter is most likely variations in a climate phenomenon known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The positioning of this years jet stream has resulted in warmer temperatures and lower precipitation because of fewer incidences of clashing warm and cold fronts. The NAO, which influences the jet-stream air current, has experienced unusually low pressure this year. What caused the pressure drop in the NAO this year? Some speculate that global-warming-related loss of Arctic sea ice may be the driver.

Which other weather events play into "global weirding?

Last year, research suggested that about seven percent of the intensification of heavy rainfall globally is a consequence of climate change. Our own research on heat waves showed that while geographical variability of heat waves is uncertain, the rising trends in the projected intensity, frequency and duration of heat waves are unmistakable.
On the other hand, our more recent research suggested that cold snaps may persist well into the end of this century. Thus, while the overall climate trend is one of warming, and heat waves are projected to intensify, extreme cold events on the average may continue to be as severe and long-lasting as they are currently.

The other aspect of the global weirding phenomenon is its impact on infrastructure, resources, species diversity and the economy. The impact of a warmer world and exacerbated extremes can be severe on both water and food security, especially in the more vulnerable parts of the world. According to the United States global Change Research Program, the consequences of climate change for the U.S. will include stressed water resources, challenges to crop and livestock production, storm surges in coastal areas and threats to human health.

Related Stories

Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.

Global climate change is anticipated to bring more extreme weather phenomena such as heat waves that could impact human health in the coming decades. An analysis led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of ...

Extreme weather, drought, heavy rainfall and increasing temperatures are a fact of life in many parts of the U.S. as a result of human-induced climate change, researchers report today in a new assessment. These and other ...

Using an ocean of data, sophisticated mathematical models and supercomputing resources, researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory are putting climate models to the test with particular focus ...

Climate models have long predicted that global warming will increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events. A new study conducted at the University of Miami and the University of Reading (U.K.) provides the first ...

New University of Colorado Boulder-led research has established a causal link between climate warming and the localized extinction of a common Rocky Mountain flowering plant, a result that could serve as a herald of future ...

A NASA study based on an innovative technique for crunching torrents of satellite data provides the clearest picture yet of changes in Antarctic ice flow into the ocean. The findings confirm accelerating ice losses from the ...

Cyanobacteria - which propel the ocean engine and help sustain marine life - can shift their colour like chameleons to match different coloured light across the world's seas, according to research by an international collaboration ...

Like avalanches onshore,many processes cause submarine landslides. One very widespread assumption is that they are associated with dissociating gas hydrates in the seafloor. However, scientists at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre ...

"Global warming is the greatest threat facing our planet today. A warming planet alters weather patterns, water supplies, seasonal growth for plants and a sustainable way of life for us, and the world's wildlife. Climate change has already started, but it's not too late to take action. There's still time for us all to be part of the solution." - Earth HourAuroop,Do you look your own kids in the eyes and tell them they are doomed to a CO2 hell?If there we legal consequences for these climate change crisis death warrants you issue to our kids, you wouldn't be spreading this needless panic. You climate change scientists have done to science what nasty priests did for the church.

I'm always amazed at how the global warming deniers seem to ignore any evidence against their position. Given that recent surveys show that 97% of scientists agree that global warming is happening, is caused by humans, and is a threat to our society (yes that's a real number), I can never quite wrap my head around the seemingly endless legions of deniers.

Then I see all the personal attacks, anger, and outright ignorance, and I realize that they aren't operating on logic or reason. Which puts them completely outside the world I understand.

That's also the point where I start to wonder, why do I have to live with these people? After all, there's nowhere for me to run. I can't protect myself from the damage they're causing. I can't persuade them because they've decided on the Truth. All I can do is watch, and suffer along with them.

Kinda like being stuck in a dingy in the middle of the ocean with the two guys from dumb and dumber eh Ax?

I was trying not to say it like that, but yeah pretty much.

Actually it's even worse than that, because this is ACTUALLY HAPPENING. The trouble for me is that I really truly can't get inside other people's heads. I knew I was going to be a physicist since 2nd grade. I literally don't know how to see the world in an unscientific way.

So to be honest, I just get confused when people reject logic and data. I wouldn't have a problem if they didn't understand the data, but for them to comprehend and then reject it - that's something weird and alien to me.

I agree. When the laws physics say things will unfold in a certain way and the observed climatic responses match what is presumed to happen, to see certain data and not believe it or be skeptical is natural, but to see multiple data sets regarding multiple different observations and reject them all is just wilful ignorance. I don't get it either. As a result I get a little edgy and sarcastic at times, but as Vendi often displays, etiquette goes out the window in the face of wilful ignorance, blatant lies, or agenda driven "whacktards"....

Would you accept data interpretation from people that that actively try to hide or destroy data sets AFTER making sweeping statements ?

Do not believe me research the facts, start with the number of "good" stations for recording temp. (ground stations). Ask the pertinent question "how do you correct for urban heat island ?" Why change the data source from tree rings to ground temp stations ? How big is the grid box used to smooth the data from ground stations ?

These are not complex questions but all ones that a good scientist would ask.

Personally I would love to have less use of fossil fuel, and support any thing that can replace it effectivly.

rubberman, axemaster, I too feel the frustration of having a reasonable discourse derailed or hijacked by the unreasonable statements of those who willfully reject commonly accepted science. I am not as formally educated in the sciences as I want to be and have been trying to use this site as an educational experience, but it is hard not to be drawn into arguments when such outragously nutty ideas are spewn forth.

Three inches of snow today, middle of Williamette valley, Oregon.194 feet above sea level, strange. Third day of spring.

If you want answers to your questions, jet, why not research them yourself?

Use questions as a starting point to knowledge, not just argument fodder.

The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

So current global temps in a La-Nina year (A cool Pacific), are now as warm as they are in a year, (1998), in which one of the strongest El-Nino events ever recorded caused a warm Pacific and warm global surface temps as a result.

Axemaster, if you want an opportunity to view logic regarding physics that is being mostly ignored, go to The General Science Journal and download number 4039 for free. The title is Matter and Associated Mysteries. To understand the new physics contained therein, requires an open mind capable of imagining the dynamic realities attempted to be explained, and unhindered by a belief that science has developed beyond reproach or revision. Axemaster, it may help the debate on global warming if you would apply your knowledge and logic derived from earning your Ph D to an assessment of the logic in the paper referred to above

Axemaster, it may help the debate on global warming if you would apply your knowledge and logic derived from earning your Ph D to an assessment of the logic in the paper referred to above

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read through a 150 page paper just to see if it means anything. Especially given that it contains no math (very bad sign). I just don't have the strength to make myself do it.

Also, I hate to tell you this, but in my opinion a true unified theory will probably be non-geometric in nature. Meaning that it would be impossible to visualize, since the elements in it would have no geometric interpretation. Quantum mechanics has some serious issues that probably result from it being a geometrically based theory. In other words I think people need to be asking themselves not "what is a particle/wavefunction" but instead "what is space".

Axemaster, your reply appears to indicate that you are not very adventurous with regards to new physics; especially regarding a fundamental version of gravity and gravitation. From my reading of the referred to work, it provides detailed explanations of the Pioneer anomalies; also what is referred to as a gravitational thermodynamic effect that would affect climate more so than CO2.With regards to mathematics, there is the mathematical statement that claims the equal acceleration of a kilogram mass due to earths gravitation is slightly less (the amount and reason is provided) than the horizontal acceleration of a kilogram mass, therefore the statement regarding the exact equivalence of gravitation mass to inertial mass is contested.

IF AGW theory is all wrong and elevating CO2 levels above the million year baseline max of 280 PPM didn't trap enough heat to cause the industrial age warming trend we have OBSERVED. And IF the drivers are natural (solar output, lack of volcanic activity, gravitational thermodynamics...etc) or are the same as in the past (MWP, Roman warm period, PETM) The current level (of CO2) we have reached WILL CAUSE additional warming and therefore amplify anything natural that is going on. This warming initiates forcings via methane release and decreased albedo which again amplifies warming. Current data suggests these forcings are currently at play and the human race continues to add 4-6 PPM of CO2 per year to this equation. In the past the earth has reset to ice age conditions through natural mechanisms. By elevating CO2 prior to warming (and continuing to do so) we have altered this entire system. Climate scientists are telling us what to expect...they aren't making it up. Watch the news.

Actually more recent evidence indicates that the Pioneer anomalies are due to simple thermal effects due to light hitting the spacecraft.

appears to indicate that you are not very adventurous with regards to new physics; especially regarding a fundamental version of gravity and gravitation

Actually I am very interested in new physics. It's just that there is a huge difference between rhetorical and mathematical work. Math can be checked for consistency, whereas using just words one can make almost anything seem plausible.

I realize that refuting a source as unimpeachable on the subject of the roman warm period and by extension the Climatic Optimum as a chart with no legend, nor source of the data and the mighty provenance of "climate warming art" is a challenge... but for those that want to live out on the edge you could read

The pioneer anomaly has been shown to be the result of differential radiation pressure rather than MOND.

It is good to have an open mind as long as it is not so open that your brain falls out.

"From my reading of the referred to work, it provides detailed explanations of the Pioneer anomalies; also what is referred to as a gravitational thermodynamic effect that would affect climate more so than CO2." - Short Bloke

After the 1st century ce there is evidence of a progressive rise in sea level. Roman buildings and peat layers were covered by the marine transgression in the Netherlands, southern England, and parts of the Mediterranean. At the same time, drying and warming trends were associated with alluviation of streams and general desiccation in southern Europe and North Africa. Similar alluviation occurred in the American Southwest. This warming and desiccation trend is evident also in the subtropics of the Southern Hemisphere. The solar activity record indicates a mean intensity comparable to that of the mid-20th century.

but as you admit that the Roman Period did warm but to you it is regional...

I guess that region is N.America, Europe, North Africa and the Sub-tropics of the southern hemisphere.

jeTard, I did not say the warming was strictly regional, since wind doesn't respect national or regional boundaries.

This is why I used the phrase "mostly regional".

It is interesting that this "mostly regional" warming - which no one questions - does not appear in the record of global temperatures. This may mean that it was not significantly high to mask natural variations in temperature, or that there was a cooling event of similar magnitude in another region that offset the warming trend.

It would appear that the answer is a combination of both those explanations.

"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

* "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

* "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

The report even takes care of tying up a loose end that has allowed some commentators to avoid the scientific literature:

* "Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Hppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.